Yes and the burning is follwed by a tingly numbness. I knew women who were into cocaine that would sprinkle a timy bit of the crystalline powder and rub it onto their labia and nipples, then inviting oral indulgence. This would result in a total tingly numbing of genital and mouth tissue all the way around. Tried it once or twice, but just not my thing.

He (all by his onesies) hasn't have the power nor the authority to err.."wave magic wands" and change the Canon law (body of laws). I assure you that if he were to try to wave said wand and change the RC religious laws or creeds we would all see just how fast a Pope can become a Pauper.

Popes in the past have been able to change Canon as well as add new doctrines at a papal whim. The Assumption of Mary mean anything to you? That was a doctrine that the pope just pulled out of his hat (or some other mysterious place) and decided that Catholics needed to believe in it and Lo, the another silly myth was born.

Anyone who thinks condoms are bad needs to watch this video...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh0ZB9OD_fg

And of course, this one, lest you suffer a terrible fate like the one seen in this video.

Here is a point of view from scientist and science fiction writer, the late Arthur C. Clarke:

“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”

Arthur C Clarke

Religion and morality go together like boiled beef and carrots. You often find them together but it is perfectly possible to have one without the other.

Many people have swallowed the idea that morality started with religion to such an extent that they cannot separate the two. I myself was under the impression that religion had a significant causative link to morality until quite recently when I came to see the truth.

Man is a primate. All primates have innate morality. A moral sense is vitally important to the efficient running of any society or group. There are no amoral primate groups anywhere. The Mafia have morals, baboons have codes. There are differences between the various groups and their codes of morality but all primate groups have some morals and standards of behaviour. Religion is also very common but it is not universal and it did not cause the codes or the instinct to observe them. These are facts that need to be clearly stated. Morality does not require religion.

In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union millions of people were brought up during the middle decades of the twentieth century in a state that was thoroughly atheist and many of the households and communities within those states were also atheist. There was no collapse of morality. You were not more likely to be robbed, raped, murdered or cheated in Leningrad than you were in Manchester. Why? Why did people freed from the fear of divine retribution not suddenly start behaving like amoral animals? Because we are animals. We are political animals, animals that need to live within societies and feel respected by them.

Religion is not the bulwark of morality any more than the****rel crowing if the cause of the dawn or the virgin sacrifices are the cause of the volcano keeping quiet. This trick has been perpetrated on people for centuries and people continue to fall for it. It is very reminiscent of the great Santa Claus conspiracy. The surest way to lose a job on television is to state clearly that there is no such person as Santa Claus. No adult believes in Santa Claus, but most are part of the conspiracy. We mustn't let children know that there is no Santa Claus because ... er, well, because. And we mustn't let the people, especially the poor, know there is no God because, well, because. We wouldn't want to face those consequences would we?

What is there to be afraid of in the truth that God is just as much an imaginary being as the bogeyman, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? None whatsoever. Morality in our species does not rest upon fear of God. We act morally because to do so makes us feel good about ourselves and makes us better friends and allies. Being good and moral is the right thing to do for your own selfish self interest. The best thing we can do as a society to make morality more widespread and more potent is to strip away all aspects of religion from it. Being good is the right thing to do because it simply is the right thing. We as a species have an innate sense of morality just as we have an innate ability to learn language. We need it. We are political animals. We have an innate sense of what is or is not fair. We need respect and the esteem of our neighbours, friends and colleagues. This makes us behave morally.

Our morality breaks down with anonymity. It is no surprise that the biggest cities in the world have the most selfish drivers. If you drive in a small town in Kansas you see people being polite and well mannered not because they fear the wrath of God but simply because in small communities people expect to interact again with you at another time. In contrast in New York, Hong Kong or Rome the rule of the road is to curse and never trust the other driver.

The way to keep morality and lose the encumbrances of religion is to promote morality in and of itself. We as a species know what morality is and we recognize moral behaviour when we see it. We are naturally moral because we have developed complex instincts to help us in social situations. These instincts work as long as we allow them instead of burying them in external threats and admonishments. The ten commandments do not help us discover ultimate morality. We all know it when we see it. The way to get people to behave in a moral way is to trust them, to integrate them and to allow them to develop fully as individuals in a caring society. People will only act as amoral criminals if they fall into a criminal subculture, are mentally deficient in morality (rare conditions do exist that cause these problems) or are in a situation in which crime really does pay in a way that can become a life choice.

However you cannot create a moral society with nothing but kindness. We also need something else, something deeply unfashionable but vital to the healthy running of any society: intolerance. We must promote intolerance of criminality and cheating. We as social animals naturally despise the cheat and the thief, but too many liberal bed-wetter types have been telling us that the thief only steals because of what we do to him. This line must be resisted and fought from both ends. We must both minimize the lure of cheating by ensuring that all can live without falling into crime and at the same time promote natural justice in the community. Criminals must be ostracized. But this is not enough. People who use the glamour of crime and immorality vicariously to achieve their legal business ends must also be shunned. Refuse to watch films that glamorize crime and violence. Refuse to buy music produced by violently antisocial people. Walk away from people who talk about such things. If you are introduced to somebody who makes their living from glorifying violence and crime wipe your hand and walk away. They might claim that they are just satisfying a demand, they are right, but we as individuals should see to it that we never add to that demand and do all we can to spurn those that do.

God cannot punish the wrongdoer or the man who sells his products with images of crime and violence but we can. How many crimes have been prevented by the fear of God? Do Christians never commit crime or sin? Do atheists spend all their days stealing from charity collection boxes, murdering strangers and sexually abusing children? There is no link between belief in the supernatural and God and morality. If the only reason a Christian can give for continued belief in his incredible theory is the idea that such a belief is a useful tool to keep the poor from falling into immorality then his religion is morally bankrupt. The only purpose I can see in religion is as a way to catch the attention in order to reinforce the messages of the natural morality that we as a species are already responding to. It cannot be beyond the wit of our species to come up with other ways to spread lessons of morality than this. Surely the poor and the dangerous will be inclined to listen more clearly if we treat them as adults rather than simply threatening them with the bogeyman again?

“When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me.” Emo Philips

But is this a growing trend in creationism? Why so much hate? I thought christians preached against hate, but telling people that atheists (all atheists) are immoral is spreading hate no matter how you look at it.

I'm not sure which is worse, the hatemongers who fantasize about us roasting in hell, or the ones who try to convert you at the doorstep.

I also made the point that many people who are complaining about religion are using emotional arguments, which are based on the experiences of themselves as a child, with abusive parents. But there is no magic rule that says that if people give up religion, then they stop being abusive. The only rule is that most people who don't think for themselves, want to fit in, and in a religious neighbourhood, fitting in means pretending to be religious. In an atheistic neighbourhood, fitting in means pretending to be atheists. But America has been mostly religious neighbourhoods. So up until now, abusive people fitted in with religion, because that was all that was out there. Now, they can fit in with atheism, and still be just as abusive, or more.

That wasn't the case for me. There was no abuse in my upbringing, either in religious or secular thought. In fact, my experience was quite positive and I learned how to look at it very objectively and you and I are not that different in how we look at it. I tend to lean toward the secular side as that is what "seems" right to me. I know that point of view is purely subjective on my part, but for me , it keeps me grounded, and believe it or not, open minded. I can respect a religious/spiritual perspective such as yours, which is educated and open minded, yet it just seems to me that when religion takes control of a social and political structure, such as what I saw growing up in the Bible Belt and what we see today in extremist Islam had very little positive infuence on it's given society.

Science is good. But only when we can question everything about it, and only when scientists praise and encourage anyone who questions any or all of any scientific theory.

In a perfect world that's how science is supposed to work. A good scientist should welcome the opportunity for someone to prove his pet theory wrong, as to do such advances scientific progress. Yet when religion argues with science, it's rarely on that level, at least not from where I sit. Usually it's a case of science arguing with a literal interpretation of scripture such as what we see in the creation/evolution argument. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that no merit came out of the debates. Some of the pet theories on how evolution worked were properly challenged and it sent science back to the drawing board so to speak and newer theories were advanced. Likewise it also set some religonists to re evaluate their views on their respective creation myths. Personally I love the Genesis story, yet I feel that the importance of it is in the metaphor rather than a literal interpretation which can never work in my opinion.

The bottom line is: why does man need to exclude G-d? What is it in man that fears G-d, and seeks G-d's removal from his point of view?

If my experience means anything, it has nothing to do with fear or loathing. I would like nothing better to believe that some great, anthropomorphic father figure could handle all of my problems, yet my mind simply can't go to that level. Trust me, I've tried. I look at the current model of the universe and I don't see a personal god. Rather I see celestial mechanics and the laws of physics at work. Perhaps that's my own logic tight compartment, my form of "dogma" if you will, but it works for me.

If there was a way that manned space travel could make a profit from mining, manufacturing etc much more resources would be dedicated to it, cost would decrease and risk would lower.

Eventually this could be done. With places like Titan being so rich in gases, it's possible new sources of fuel and energy could be tapped from the atmosphere and used. Manned space flight may be expensive, but in the long run, our energy problems could possibly be solved from it.

However, if you had some negative emotional experiences as a child, that stopped the growth of your consciousness, then you might be trapped in being unable to question those assumptions, until you fully dealt with those experiences and the feelings you had about them. That would leave your mind trapped in being still in a childlike state. However, if those negative emotional experiences weren't directly related to your experiences of work, or getting dates, then you might find that you would be very able to work and date, and so you could compartmentalise those feelings to those parts of your consciousness that deal with those types of relationships that were directly involved in those negative emotional experiences. I don't know exactly if you had such experiences, or that if you did, then what areas of your life that were affected by those experiences. But if my observations about people are right, and in this aspect, I have found it to be almost an unbroken rule, then I would say that those areas of your life that were directly impacted by those negative emotional experiences are areas of your life in which you have found an extreme lack of success, again and again and again. You are quite capable of being successful in those areas, but only as long as you can be rational about them, and as long as you hold onto naive, and childlike views based on those areas of your life, you will not be able to think rationally about them, because the minute you apply rational thought to those areas, you will apply lateral mechanisms of thought, which will immediately make you compare your experiences to every other situation, and you will realise that your experiences only occurs to some people, and is usually far more common with indications of low mental health in the people who subjected you to those experiences, that resulted in them acting in extremely negative fashions.

So, if I understand you correctly, you said all of this to say that not all people of religious faith shut down the critical thinking to embrace faith? OK fine, fair enough, I agree. Newton is a prime example ( My imagination still wonders how much farther a man of Newton's genius might have pushed man's progress had it not been hampered by the virus of religious faith). I don't fault people for believing in God. I don't feel that my belief is superior to others, except in the sense that it is superior to ME and for ME.What I have a problem with, is the belief that everything in the secular world must be based on the belief of a supreme being. I don't feel that morality has to be based on it. Moralty can be based on pure logic and it would work just fine in my opinion. I still don't understand your point behind the Roman Empire's embracing of Christianity. The results were the same. The Dark Ages WERE a result of religious thought being in total control. It matters not who was at the helm or why it got that way.The bottom line is: Why does man need a god? I see no historical evidence that belief in such has done any good. I know others like to point out the atrocities committed under atheistic regimes like Bolshevism, but this was just a radical devotion to the Dogma of Marx and really is just mad religious fervor under the guise of atheism. True atheism needs no religious fervor. Just doubt and a questioning attitude, both of which are healthy in my opinion.

Porn shouldnt be abused but when people realized we have been screwed over, they are making money off of us, well that sjust stupid but hey we're human.

Somehow I doubt that the porn buying demographic is unaware that the industry has gotten rich off of them. It's pretty much common knowledge. I also doubt that they are unaware that what they're viewing is fantasy. This too, is common knowledge, unless one is a complete moron.

A hundred years later, they were possessed by uncivilized and barbarous peoples, and the dark ages began.

If the uncivilized, barbarous people were in control, then how come Christianity was the ruling religion and not the pagan tribal religions of these so called barbarians? The dark ages were a time of religious theocracy when dissention against the prevailing religion (Christianity, which in reality is just a recycled version of the old pagan religions of ancient Rome) was dealt with harshly.

2012? yes, that will indeed be a sweet year. The last year in which I will have a kid under the age of 18 living in my house. Free at last!

Perhaps he may feel that the relationship is lacking enough visual stimulation. Men are primarily visual first. I don't know anything about his sex life with his partner, but perhaps if his partner only wanted sex with the lights off and never wanted to engage in anything visual (such as allowing him to watch his partner masturbate or something), then perhaps he feels an important part of stimulation ( to him anyway) is missing.

Perhaps if his partner offered to watch it with im and perhaps fondled him or did some fellatio while he watched. It's better to share the fun then get upset about it.

There is a very good, practical reason for engaging in this type of thing. I know this isn't for everyone, and that's fine, yet for folks who may like casual sex, it's very safe and fun. No worry about STD's, and for monogamous couples, it can be an exciting alternative when intercourse isn't practical. My ex and I used to enjoy this in the shower. We would often shower together in the morning to save time, and then get excited when we would inevitably end up playing around. Intercourse to her after a shower wasn't really a good option as she would end up having to wash herself all over again, plus, positioning for sex in a shower could be a challenge, especially if you have permanent back injuries like I have.. So alot of times, I would sit down, get comfortable, and have her stand over me and masturbate while I took care of myself. It could be a very hot way to start the day.

Agreed. The biggest problem I have with religious faith, is that in order to make it work for you, you must shut down your critical thinking process and just "accept and believe", something I never have been able to do and since I was raised and live in the heart of Bible Belt fundy land, it would've been advantageous for me to embrace the nonsense. I just could not. I love logic, sanity and rational, critical thinking too much.

Shutting down the critical thinking process to embrace a fantasy is very dangerous in my humble opinion. I liken it to going under a general anesthetic, which any anesthetist will tell you is dangerous.

I look at the legacy left by the proliferation of Abrahamic religion and I'm not impressed. Perhaps if people had embraced thought processes like Dawkins espouses throughout history, we would've put a man on the moon by 1669 instead of 1969.

Yes, and to my schizophrenic ex mother in law, the voices in her head were very real too.The causes they are fighting for in the middle east that indeed ARE real, that is OBJECTIVELY real can be diplomatically solved through reason and tolerance. Subjective reality over interpretation of ancient mythologies can and will never be solved because each side believes that their point of view is right and anyone who doesn't share it is wrong. Each side believes that they take their marching orders from the Great Sky Fairy and the opposition is working for Satan or his equivalent. As long as this type of thought prevails (superstition over reason), there can and will never be peace as there is no resolution.

You might not agree with their methods (as I do not); you might see it as ridiculous (and in many ways I do as well) but you would never assume to tell them that they shouldn't feel the way they do or believe the way they believe.

I could care less what a person privately believes and how they manifest it in their individual lives. People attending church, synagogue or mosque don't concern me. A war that never gets resolved and keeps the rest of the world on pins and needles DOES concern me as it effects my life and the lives of everyone else on the planet. So while I can respect and coexist and all that good stuff, by their own admission, they cannot. Dawkins makes this quite clear in his videos with interviews with Muslim clerics, Fundamentalist Christian pastors and others who put relgious faith before reason.

when a person has a real intimate experience with God and His Spirit, who teaches them about Gods Son, they can not hold it back.... a quote from Gods Word says that they can no more hold it back than the sun can hold back its light....

As another poster stated, "There is no objective truth in [any] religion."

I personally agree with Dawkins, though I think there will always be religion and people should be free to choose for themselves. However, I have a real problem when religious thought is substituted for reason in matters that effect religious and non religious alike, such as the situation in the middle east, already exploding over wealth and power issues concerning oil and political claims to real estate, boils over with religious issues that in my opinion, need to be put on the back burner. Who cares what temple is built on what land for which messiah or what chosen people? Why are the likes of John Hagee taken seriously in the white house? How about practical solutions to real problems without having to consult ancient ramblings in holy books.

Actually Ameera, there are two schools of thought regarding good and evil. One belief , as you shared in the story, sees evil as the abscence of good, much the same way cold is the abscence of heat. Another view sees good and evil as equal and opposite forces, which is where the belief in karma comes from. The cycles of yang and yin.

I agree with the OP, there is no scinetific proof one way or the other regarding the existence or non existence of God. That said, there is also no scientific proof of the existence or non existence of unicorns, hobgoblins or flying winged toasters.

Show me where a church that can afford a recording studio, TV production facilty, theme park and where pastors make 6 and 7 figures can afford charity. With an outgoing budget like that, I would expect to see more homeless shelters, free medical facilities for the poor, free school books and supplies to those that can't afford it and the like. Instead I see more of that coming from private companies looking for tax breaks and image publicity and (hopefully) a sense of doing something for the community.

Just my observations. But hey, who am I to tell anyone where to donate their money?

It's called giving it away for nothing. No strings attached. Why buy the cow when you're getting the milk for free, as the vulgar saying goes. Personally, I have emotions attached to my sexuality.

I never liked this expression because it always implies SELLING. It imples that sex is a sellable commodity (which it is, but how many women want to be thought of as prostitutes?) and that the man must make a sacrifice of some sort before he should morally and ethically enjoy sex. If he's not going to commit, then his only other option, according this ethic, is to visit a hooker, which makes him unworthy as a future mate in the eyes of most women due to the "ick" factor.I've always felt that sex should be a shared experience and all cards should be on the table. If you don't want to commit, then make your intentions known and stick to them. The problem with this kind of honesty, is that it robs the experience of it's spontanaety and takes some of the "game" out of it. Therefore the guy is now back to square one. He ain't getting any if he hasn't got "game", and if he's not looking to commit, just wants an Fbud or "booty call", his "game" must be compromised if he intends on being honest.

Are you angry that these religious folks are successful and wealthy, and after theyve paid the IRS their fair share, have enough left over to purchase nice rides? Tsk-tsk.

Yes and they can write off their purchases as church expenses and even get refunds. I don't necessarily have a problem with anyone having nice things, though I think it's a bit in bad tast for institutions that claim to exist to help the poor, flaunt their luxurious wealth and sell it to gullible believers as a gospel of prosperity. Give your 10 % and more and God will bless you more. These churches mainly target lower income African American folks and economically depressed rural white folks as well, the very people who can't afford it.

What are these people getting for their tithes? Ever examine that? The money goes to pay the upkeep on these mega churches, which is nothing more than expensive marketing ploys to dazzle people. One church I know takes up 4 city blocks and has a sort of theme park inside, complete with a Noah's Ark water slide. Is this really necessary for worship? If all that money is going to these things, what are the poor, the downtrodden (i.e. the ones the Bible speaks about) getting? An expensive show, and an empty promise that the more they drain their wallets, the more God will bless them and they can be like the flashy church people.

Is this the example that's set in your Bible? Were the Old Testament prophets wealthy and flashy (assuming they existed), was Jesus (assuming he existed too)?

To the nonreligious: I doubt that this is what bothers you the most about the Church.

It may not be what bothers me the most, but it sure ranks up there pretty high. I have a problem with anyone drawing 6 and 7 figure salaries, driving Escalades and Hummers and who don't pay a dime of income tax, while my little paycheck is regularly raped on a bi weekly basis by the Infernal Robbery Service.

Religion does NOT give one any exclusivity on being moral and certainly, judging from how many ministers, priests and other church officials end up facing such things as child molestation charges, does being religious automatically makes one moral.

Morality is NOT a divine universal construct, but a device built into our genetic structure much the same way an animals' instincts are. It is used for the sake of sociatal operation as we are social creatures and subject to evolutionary changes as the species evolves.

In essence a tax exempt establishment, such as a church, should be allowed to maintain their status if they are giving back to the community - taking care of the widows, the poor, etc.....but that's just my opinion.

As should any non profit organization who does the above, however, I fail to see how preachers wearing 1500 dollar suits and thousands of dollars worth of jewelry driving Hummers and preaching in sanctuaries that would fit several city blccks and are complete with TV production equipment that rivals many TV stations accomplishes giving anything back to the community.

hate to point out the obvious my friend, but the level of credibility of the media and churches are pretty much the same, non existent.

I never said my industry was perfect ( unlike the claims from some churches about their doctrines and holy books), I simply said that in almost 30 years of journalism, I've seen more than my fair share of church corruption.

Churches have ulterior motives which involves possibly individual financial gain, as opposed to what, oh I don’t know, how about commercials, or political parties, or ratings? I am sorry; I fail to see the difference…

Here are some big differences. The entertainment industry never claims to be anything other than what it is. It doesn't TELL you what to believe, doesn't call you a heretic or condemn you to eternal torment if you don't believe it. You go to a movie, watch a TV show, you KNOW it's all fake, there is no one trying to convince you that your eternal condition is dependent on your belief. You don't like "liberal" CNN, go watch FOX noise, you at least have a CHOICE here on what you want to puruse and myriad other sources like print, radio and the internet. Once you step into a church and accept the doctrine, there are NO MORE CHOICES.Religion,OTOH, Christianity in particular, tries to convince you that fables are historical fact and your eternal future is dependent on your acceptance of the BS. It also tries to tell you how to live,eat,make love,raise your children, what music to listen to, what books to read,etc. and if that's not enough, it wants at least 10% of your gross income, which it pays NO TAXES on.

I must disagree with you on thinking that Science could even begin to fix what is wrong with our humanity or lack thereof.

Well lets' look at the historical track record, shall we? What has science brought? Medicine, education, solutions to problems, this machine on which I'm writing, the electricity to run it.......What has religion given us? The Crusades, The Inquistion, the witch burning hysteria. Can you really give me one major instance in history where Christianity in and of itself made a great contribution to man's progress?

Contrary to popular belief not many Churches these days do not stand for what He does

That's a rather bold statement and one that really can't possibly be true when you have literally thousands of churches, hundreds of denominations and sects,all claiming to worship the same entity, yet no two denominations can agree on the same doctrine out of the same book, by the alledged same founder. Not to mention how they all accuse each other of heresy. How can they all stand for what "He does", when they can't even agree on what it is "He "(or those who claim "His" following)is supposed to do?

i am sure you have seen charities that have did the same. should we stop helping charities aswell?

Of course not. Yet I have to question a church's motives when their buildings (not the plural) cover several city blocks and they have TV production studios and facilities that rival many local stations as well as amusement park rides that are close to Disney level and pastors that live better than some heads of state. Especially when they pay no taxes.

I also have a problem with the fact that a church or other religious group have ulterior motives with their charities. It's called proseltyzing. At what cost is their charity? Their ridiculous dogma has to not only be tolerated (which is fine by me, I can tolerate their nonsensical beliefs when it's no one is trying to sell me on them) but the cost of their charity is their need win converts. I for one, feel that we have far too many dogmatic religious doctrines and beliefs floating around, and not enough practical, scientific thought is allowed to adress societal ills.

Tithing to god means looking after and taking care of the people in the lower classes to you, and it doesnt just mean in monetary terms, labour, time, even words - if done i nthe faith for God is Tithing to god. So whenever you are walking, and see someone hurt, or sick, always give them your ear - you dont have to tithe to the church - just to God.

If there was more of this belief and less of the "make out your check to (insert church name here)", I would have more respect for churches.

I have seen people who doctors say are barren have children because of their prayers and faith in God.

Do a google search in the news and you'll find a rather signifigant number of children who have died when prayer and fasting were used instead of medical attention.For that matter,I've seen Satanists put curses on people and then claim that any misfortune that befell their "victim" was result of the curse. I've seen Santerians claim that their ritual with sacrificing a chicken or breaking an egg resulted in their court case going in their favor and I've known Wiccans who claimed that their spells have cured everything from inoperable cancer to broken marriages. I also dated an exotic dancer who claimed that she once had a glass pyramid that when she put a dollar bill under it and placed the pyramid in her window at night during certain phases of the moon, she made better tips. She even claimed this happened on dead nights in the middle of the week.

Not from your friends, wife, or ex-wife or anyone you know, and it doesn't have to be the whole story, just the high lights of your "first hand" experience with it...

Yeah, I Didn't think so...

Being a TV news cameraman for almost 30 years, I've personally covered more than a dozen cases of church corruption on everything from fraud,embezzlement, misuse of funds to child molestation. None of those cases were anything personal to me other than the fact that they all involved very large,popular churches of all denominations and all ethnic/socio-economic backgrounds.

You think it feels good to put my faith in a God that forbids me to enjoy sex as a single woman? You think it satisifies that emotional need? Think again. You have no idea of all the worldly pleasures that I have starved myself from, many things that I so long for in the flesh. Nor do you know of the cost of my faith.

Obviously your emotional need to believe in this imaginary being is stronger than your sex drive. There is nothing objective you can offer that would propose any other conclusion.

1) How about non-blind acceptance of a religious book? Wha? You didn't know that it happens? That's too bad

1) It comes in two forms, blind and semi blind.

Why do you care so much what people do to satisfy their emotional needs? Why the great interest in others?

It's not the emotional need of the other person that concerns me. It's how collectively a bunch of people's emotional needs effect society in general. When emotional needs are prioritized over logic, science and common sense, I have a problem. Not that I give a rat's patoot what another person believes, but how those beliefs manifest themselves in the daily secular world.

History is a good teacher. Literal belief in the Bible has left a rotten legacy. I ,for one, don't care to see a return to the Dark Ages.

Without God? Might as well tell me to live without breath or behold beauty with no sight.

Very typical response from the religious. Religion and their respective "bibles" satisfy an emotional aspect of the human psyche. People believe because it feels good. Non belief encourages thought, i.e. work, therefore in my opinion blind acceptance of any religious book is intellectually lazy.

Ever wonder why no one except a few in the "fringe" of religion don't worship Zeus, Apollo, Horus, Mithra or any of the other pagan gods of antiquity? Because we know better now. We know what causes thunder and lightening, it's not Zeus throwing thunderbolts or Thor throwing his hammer. We know the sun is not a man in a fiery chariot.

The literal interpretation of the Bible is losing ground because we now know such facts as the world is 4.6 billion years old NOT a few thousand. Also, if you study the Bible and pagan history, it's very apparent that the Bible is not only a composite of ancient mythical gods and situations, retrofitted to another culture, but a book of astrological history. It's very obvious that Jesus is a recycled and composited pagan sun god. So what motivation, besides emotional need, do people have to continue to hang on to a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists." ~ Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

I've known a few of them as well as Young Earth Creationists. They exist, but in what percentage as compared to the scientific community in general? The numbers significant? I seriously doubt it.

I'm really looking forward to the remake. I still have a 16mm print of the movie that I bought back in '81. I'm hoping to have my drive in theater open in time for the release in December as I fell pretty sure it will do well with Keanu Reeves.

The religious inuendo in the original didn't strike me as anything particularly special except to show an attempt on Rene's character to show common ground with earth people, that is mortality and a sort of similarity in spiritual veiw, in spite of the fact the alien race was so superior to humanity.

What I hope is preserved is Klaatu's message of peace through resposibilty. He first tells earth that a race of robots has been given absolute power over a federation of planets, but assures humanity that, "This doesn't mean giving up any freedom, except of course freedom to act irresponsibly". Then he gives earth the choice of joining, or be annhilated.

It left me wondering what would be interpreted as "irresponsible behavior".

If you are not a true Christian, then you will never understand the Bible. No matter how many times you read the Bible, it will not make since to you, until you first believe in Jesus Christ...

Look at the dynamics here. BELIEVE first, then read. Not read first and use your critical thinking skills to decide IF you believe it or not. I just read another post on tithing from someone who believes that you should just give your money and not worry about what the money is used for and now you're telling me to beleive something before I read so that I'll understand it????

Perhaps, but don’t worry about what others do with the money you give, because you aren’t giving it to them, you are simply being obedient, as we should be with the rest of His word. Again, this is by no means the only area where we need to be obedient; this is just a tiny little step.

YOU are the one in need of recovery. Can you hear yourself? Give money, but don't worry about where it goes?

Moreover, personally, I have never known of anyone first hand, and I am willing to bet neither do you.

This makes absolutely no sense. Know anyone first hand??? What are you talking about?

I am over a coffee clutch of singles and we are in Gen, so we have been looking at the various pairing of males and females so I think it is a religious question that is why I put it here.

It's more of a cultural practice than religious. It's based more on economics than anything else. Women in such cultures were/are considered PROPERTY or a COMMODITY. Pairing a daughter up with someone higher up on the econmic/social scale meant a benefit for the whole family, the daughter's happiness is not even a consideration in the equation. It's LOW PRIORITY.

If you buy a spouse for your child do you think you could pick better for them then you have for yourself?

No. Since I screwed up so badly on my first marriage, I wouldn't even want to attempt it on my kids.

If your parents had picked your mate would they have picked better then you have?

Based on who my parents tried to set me up with as a teenager and knowing how many of them turned out, definitely not.

If you were Jacob would you have worked 14 years for Rachel or been happy with Leah?

Happiness was a low priority, or at least what we consider happiness today, so I doubt it's much of a comparison.

I guess taking a sample of "holy water" and a sample of regular, ordinary water ( from the same source for control purposes) and scientifically analyzing them for differences wouldn't help here? Just a thought.

The gospel of prosperity IMO is a religious pyramid scheme with the clergy at the top.

Not even that, it's more pathetic. People are duped into giving that really can't afford it and they're deluded into thinking that every mundane thing they do to get on their feet financially is God blessing them because they gave. An out of work person goes to church and gives 10 bucks that he can't afford. Then by chance he gets a job, that's seen as not his efforts of going out and applying ( which is what he would've done anyway), that's the Lord blessing him, so he's of course urged to give more. Then 6 months later, let's say he gets a raise (which he probably would've gotten anyway on just about any job after that much time), then of course, he's pressured to give more. I have a problem with this as it discourages rational critical thinking and encourages magical thinking.

Funny you should mention pyramid schemes. Religious zeal and pyramid schemes go hand in hand. Ever been to an Amway (Quickstar) convention? It has all the trappings of an Evangelical meeting and many of the top people in those organizations are UberChristians.